|
Why are modal spells that exciting? There's charms and stuff like steel sabotage. Hell, even Shock or Gods Willing is effectively a modal spell.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
Zoness posted:Why are modal spells that exciting? There's charms and stuff like steel sabotage. Hell, even Shock or Gods Willing is effectively a modal spell. Besides Cryptic Command being a giant-sized asskicking, modal spells in general are very powerful. Imagine how much shittier Shock would be if it only went to face or to creature. If Gods Willing only gave protection from black. Modes add a lot of power to the spell in a way that rewards the player for making correct choices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:It would be easy to do a spell that lets you get all modal effects without touching the keyword Entwine. It could be templated pretty simply like this: Why, though? It's a whole bunch of complicated text for something that's probably not worth doing in the first place. It would confuse a lot of players, does nothing on its own, and probably breaks a bunch of cards if it's costed low enough to be playable. Just because something is possible within the rules doesn't mean it's a good idea to print.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:That's probably leftover art from a Tiger Woods TCG WotC got the license for but never brought to market. Tiger Woods Animorphs TCG Crossover
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
These suggestions are way too complicated. The cleanest way to mess with a modal spell is something like Spelljack, where you can recast the spell, thereby choosing whatever mode you want without Wizards printing a card with the word "mode" or "modal" in its rules text for the first time ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:These suggestions are way too complicated. The cleanest way to mess with a modal spell is something like Spelljack, where you can recast the spell, thereby choosing whatever mode you want without Wizards printing a card with the word "mode" or "modal" in its rules text for the first time ever. If a spell you cast says "choose one", instead it reads "choose one or more". 2URR Enchantment Mythic
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Why are modal spells that exciting? There's charms and stuff like steel sabotage. Hell, even Shock or Gods Willing is effectively a modal spell. In this specific case, it's also a cool way to connect mechanics and setting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
mehall posted:If a spell you cast says "choose one", instead it reads "choose one or more". That does ridiculous things with non-modal templates like Blackmail, Mire's Toll, or Signal the Clans And if it's really going to apply to things that aren't instants or sorceries, look at what it does with Jitte or Cabal Interrogator. Also as a strict substitution it would make cards with some templates effectively read "choose one or more or more" or "choose one or more or both".
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Zoness posted:That does ridiculous things with non-modal templates like Blackmail, Mire's Toll, or Signal the Clans It costs 5 and in colours that aren't Black so who really cares if it makes Blackmail a slightly better Hymn to Tourach
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:It costs 5 and in colours that aren't Black so who really cares if it makes Blackmail a slightly better Hymn to Tourach That's just one interaction, there could be something way worse that just totally breaks the game that you haven't thought of yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
modal spells are awesome because of flavortown
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Chamale posted:If you tap your opponent's field and cantrip, that's not a time walk and a card because it's card neutral, making it Just A Time WalkTM. You get a card the next turn though! I mean so do they but you're still up +1 card from a standard time walk you just have to share the wealth (which blue is fine doing). I don't think Crypic would be TOO strong for the current standard. It would just be incredibly strong and blue would find a way to warp around it to be Very Good. Resolving a Cryptic is one of the most backbreaking things you can do, especially in a slow format like the current standard. The big problem is Cryptic in standard would mean they couldn't print poo poo for blue until it rotates. Blue would get a bunch of unplayable garbage and be relegated mainly to a splash color. Do you really want that? Because trust me Cryptic Control was a terrible environment and warped absolutely everything to conform or beat it. I Love You! fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
mehall posted:If a spell you cast says "choose one", instead it reads "choose one or more". Looking up cards to break with this, I found an oldie but baddie with some confusing rear end oracle text. Pyramids Not that anyone would ever play this card, but why doesn't it just say "Target land gains indestructible until end of turn" for one of the modes? Cactrot fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:That's just one interaction, there could be something way worse that just totally breaks the game that you haven't thought of yet. Jeskai Ascendancy proves that so long as it's fine in Standard, they can ban it later if they have to. (I don't think Ascendancy needs banned, but it's the current example)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:You get a card the next turn though! I mean so do they but you're still up +1 card from a standard time walk you just have to share the wealth (which blue is fine doing). I mean, there was a deck that played neither cryptic nor cruel that almost beat that deck that played Cryptic AND Cruel. Piloted by LSV and Nassif respectively of course. Although it was arguably a lot worse in the standard rotation before Alara was in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Equilibrium posted:Ice Age Swords to Plowshares is still the best and it's not close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk753EWixdw
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:Looking up cards to break with this, I found an oldie but baddie with some confusing rear end oracle text. It's only supposed to prevent destruction once, not until end of turn. Casting Sinkhole on the land twice will still destroy it this way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
 That ether. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
What happens if you counter someone casting a morph with Kheru Spellsnatcher? Do you get the creature coming in face up, face down, or just a generic sort of morph token?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Erdos posted:What happens if you counter someone casting a morph with Kheru Spellsnatcher? Do you get the creature coming in face up, face down, or just a generic sort of morph token? You get punched by a judge for wasting that poo poo on a morph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
BaronVonVaderham posted:You get punched by a judge for wasting that poo poo on a morph. "Wasting" it? That morph could be Sagu Mauler!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
BaronVonVaderham posted:You get punched by a judge for wasting that poo poo on a morph. Is the judge ferocious?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Erdos posted:What happens if you counter someone casting a morph with Kheru Spellsnatcher? Do you get the creature coming in face up, face down, or just a generic sort of morph token? It gets flipped before it is exiled and you can cast it without paying as the face-up version?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Erdos posted:What happens if you counter someone casting a morph with Kheru Spellsnatcher? Do you get the creature coming in face up, face down, or just a generic sort of morph token? Reading the ruling, you cannot pay alternate costs, such as morph. So you'd have to play the card you stole face-up. http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=386581
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Devor posted:Reading the ruling, you cannot pay alternate costs, such as morph. So you'd have to play the card you stole face-up. Looks correct. The wording says "you may cast that card", and the morph is a card that's just face down. It's still the same card in exile, but face up. You should still be bear punched for doing it, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Is the judge ferocious? no but he is a bear if that makes a difference
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Isn't it kind of wrong for someone (Reid Duke, and I assume a bunch of other people) w/ competitive aspirations to be privy to some cards in an unreleased set months before everyone else? (Regarding yesterday's spoiler leak)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Isn't it kind of wrong for someone (Reid Duke, and I assume a bunch of other people) w/ competitive aspirations to be privy to some cards in an unreleased set months before everyone else? (Regarding yesterday's spoiler leak) I highly doubt it was months in advance
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I highly doubt it was months in advance Meant to say weeks. But assuming he just wrote it, I guess it'd only be half a month.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Isn't it kind of wrong for someone (Reid Duke, and I assume a bunch of other people) w/ competitive aspirations to be privy to some cards in an unreleased set months before everyone else? (Regarding yesterday's spoiler leak) Maybe, but honestly just knowing one or even a few cards doesn't amount to much- there will be a bunch of cards you don't know about that will be played, so it's not like you can do any serious testing of the new format based off of it. Not to mention they're being given early information for the purpose of helping to share that information with everyone early, so I really don't think having seen it a few weeks in advance is much of an advantage. Starving Autist fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Meant to say weeks. But assuming he just wrote it, I guess it'd only be half a month. I mean, in a way it is a legit concern but to be honest knowing one card out of 150 or however many even months before the release date isn't gonna lead to a real advantage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I mean, in a way it is a legit concern but to be honest knowing one card out of 150 or however many even months before the release date isn't gonna lead to a real advantage. Between the entire CFB collective I think they'd have something approaching substantial (lsv himself was responsible for previewing 4 or more Khans cards). I don't know if it's unreasonable to think they'd share
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Guillaume Wafo-Tapa was banned for leaking New Phyrexia's 'God Book,' a visual spoiler of the entire set that he had weeks before the official spoilers even began. I always thought that was incredibly fishy and have wondered how widespread access to these spoilers is among the pro community. http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/news/042811a
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I'm more concerned that they have access to massive stores of data in general that no one else does. We're given the top X number of decks in a tournament, they have access to every single list submitted by hundreds or thousands of players. Sometimes even if a deck isn't absolutely dominant, you'll see a fair few of the list in the top if 50% of the room is running it and a few inevitably get really lucky pairings. They can see trends like shifts in the density of certain decks in the room or changes in how frequently certain cards are being played. Hell they also have access to sales figures, and they can see going into a GP that a certain card spiked in demand or that another card got buylisted a lot more than usual. It's something that bothered me with that old discussion around the pro tour or whatever that was where someone got sales info from a vendor. I dislike that my purchases become data points for others to leverage an advantage that I have zero ways to duplicate simply by virtue of their being on this company's payroll. How is it that every pro player on a big name team somehow comes into a tournament with a deck perfectly tuned for exactly the meta that shows up? I get that they're way better at this game than me, but predicting the metagame that precisely has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with having access to information. Aside from the obvious financial barriers they get to bypass (being able to construct any deck with any cards without spending a penny, being able to draft or playtest a set with their friends for free because the opened packs just go into the company's inventory afterward, etc), there are definitely huge benefits that are gained from joining one of these teams that the rest of us could never hope to replicate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Do you know why I love Holiday Cube? Just watched MattiasNL turn 1 Island, Sol Ring + Everflowing Chalice into turn 2 Monolith + Thran Dynamo + Academy + Tinker (into Time Vault) + Key and winning (his) turn 3 with a Treachery on his opponent's Diregraf Zombie. I would lose my poo poo if it happened to me, but watching it on stream is so glorious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
tgijsola posted:Guillaume Wafo-Tapa was banned for leaking New Phyrexia's 'God Book,' a visual spoiler of the entire set that he had weeks before the official spoilers even began. I always thought that was incredibly fishy and have wondered how widespread access to these spoilers is among the pro community. Probably pretty wide seeing as they use trusted pros for playtesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
tgijsola posted:Guillaume Wafo-Tapa was banned for leaking New Phyrexia's 'God Book,' a visual spoiler of the entire set that he had weeks before the official spoilers even began. I always thought that was incredibly fishy and have wondered how widespread access to these spoilers is among the pro community. I don't see a compelling reason for Matignon having access to the complete spoiler. Anti-Citizen posted:Probably pretty wide seeing as they use trusted pros for playtesting. Ones that aren't retired?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I don't see a compelling reason for Matignon having access to the complete spoiler. He was a set review writer for a french magic info publisher (can't remember if it's paper or electronic but IIRC it's paper). Set Reviews are hard to write and have be timely or relevant for prereleases with only a week's time, which is why Godbooks were given out, since between final writing and editing for SCG web content there's a gap of 3 days or so for normal articles and even then clerical errors make it to publication. I think the fallout was just no godbooks, suck it up, write set reviews faster if you want readership.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Zoness posted:He was a set review writer for a french magic info publisher (can't remember if it's paper or electronic but IIRC it's paper). Set Reviews are hard to write and have be timely or relevant for prereleases with only a week's time, which is why Godbooks were given out, since between final writing and editing for SCG web content there's a gap of 3 days or so for normal articles and even then clerical errors make it to publication. I take it Matignon wasn't officially connected to CFB at the time, at least?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
 with Baron and Sola's posts. The big concern I have isn't on the competitive meta, because that'll be solved at some point anyway. We all know that between CFB and SCG there's massive amounts of the equivalent of insider trading going on. My friends and I play against the people who write for SCG all the time and they aren't anything special. They just happen to have lots of access to information and lots of free time. There is also absolutely no reason why sites should be given access to God books for reviews. WOTC absolutely owes nothing to the likes of any dealer to have early info.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:59
|
|
